Ballot Measures for November Ballot

Hi All. I just checked the Department of Elections website. Not much new to report, except that the Short-Term Residential Rentals ballot measure and the Mission District Housing Moratorium ballot measure each qualified with enough signatures, so both measures will be on the ballot. I will work on the Short-Term Residential Rental measure and bring an opposing argument to our next meeting on August 8. An important one for us to submit an argument against--will post something before the meeting for review, comments, and suggested pointers. Limit is 300 words for arguments.
As for the ballot measure Surplus Public Lands Ordinance proposed by the "Gang of Four" (Kim, Avalos, Campos, and Mar), I don't care much for this one and will recommend a NO vote. The basic intent is that all vacant or not fully utilized city land be converted to government housing for the homeless and mostly low income. 100% subsidized and deed-restricted for a period of at least 55 years, which seems pretty crazy to me. My reading of this measure finds that unused property owned by the SF Unified School District and the SF Community College District would not be affected by this measure, though they would have to report statistics on their properties annually to government bureaucrats. This measure appears to satisfy Mayor Lee's dream of having lots of buildings available to house the homeless. As Libertarians, we should be encouraging The City to sell properties it no longer needs and to consolidate its properties, when practical, rather than encouraging more people to become more dependent on government. Page 2 under Findings of this measure hilariously lists one of the main causes of homelessness as "San Francisco' s unique place as a destination point." Yes, a destination for government handouts. I might tackle an argument against this one, if I get a chance, but if anyone else wants this one, that's OK with me.
Will advise of updates to the ballot measures as I see them.
P.S. By the way, I just read about a state initiative that was just submitted to the Secretary of State to start gathering signatures. It's a dilly and get a load of the title: "Lifting Children & Families Out of Poverty Act." It's 53 pages long, but with a title like that, it's a shoo-in to be passed. The "lifting" would be funded with a "surcharge" as opposed to a "tax" on properties valued at $3 million or more.

Dear Aubrey,

You are doing great, wonderful work on this. More importantly you are doing
work that others will be afraid to do even though they agree with you.

What I would like to explore are ways for the Libertarian Party to make
some money out of this. For example, in New York there is an organization
that opposes the rent control laws, yet they have a name that makes them
sound like they favor the rent control laws. The name is the Rent
Stabilization Association or RSA. Property owners donate money to them so
they can continue the fight against the rent control laws. They get
millions of dollars in donations from property owners.

Since the Libertarian Party of San Francisco is the only organization with
the balls to fight against the left-wingers, perhaps you can start
soliciting and receiving donations from property owners and others to carry
on the fight that nobody else is willing to fight publicly.

Sam Sloan


  I second your appreciation for Aubrey's work!

  Regarding your suggestion, my sense is that organized propertied interests tend to be more interested in pursuing their own narrow political goals than in supporting an organization like the Libertarian Party that is for freedom across the board. Not that we can't or shouldn't do more to seek donations, of course, but I think single-issue groups with narrower focuses tend to have an easier time of it.

  On that note, I am happy to report that the SF Bay Area Renters Federation -- a group whose single issue, in case you haven't read previous posts about them here, is basically "Let more housing be built!" -- has just been granted the use of some very conveniently located office space on Market Street a few blocks from City Hall, presumably by a sympathetic property-owning individual or group.

  SFBARF founder Sonja Trauss seems open to letting me host a monthly event there that I am hoping can help spawn more single-issue groups and activist efforts that operate under more of a libertarian framework. If anyone on this list is able and willing to help with these events, please contact me!

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Hi Aubrey and All,

Aubrey, thanks for this announcement. I agree with your NO vote recommendation on the public lands proposition. Indeed, the Civil Grand Jury noted the huge amount of government property sitting around, but from a Libertarian point of view, we would prefer that government sold it and used the funds to lower tax rates.

My conspiracy theory has always been that San Francisco wants all property to be government owned or government controlled. In this, San Francisco is part of a regional plan to do as such by simply turning taxpayers into rate payers, with no say as to the rate paid. Interestingly, the posts on the LPSF website talking about Plan Bay Area and the march towards obliteration of property rights are the ones that consistently get the most hits.

Hope you will be able to write an argument about the surplus property measure, Aubrey.


Hi Sam and Starchild. Funny that you mentioned the property owners. I heard about SPOSFI (Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute) a year ago at a meeting at the GGLR, and I have been meaning to go to one of their meetings ever since but it conflicts with my schedule at work. However, this is a good group for the LPSF to partner with, so I will try to make it a special point to go to their next meeting. They meet monthly at St. Mary's Cathedral on the second Tuesday of each month at 7:00 PM. If we aren't for property rights (in addition to keeping the government out of our personal lives), then what's the purpose of having an LPSF?
P.S. By the way, another pro-freedom colleague forwarded an email from SPOSFI opposing a new ordinance by Supervisor Kim making it even harder to evict tenants and also making it against the law to raise the rent for new tenants (in certain circumstances), even when the property owner followed all the rules (and there are plenty of them already). I wrote my supervisor (Yee-District 7) advising a NO vote on the proposed ordinance (File 150646) and the reasons but never heard back.

Hi Marcy. OK, I'll work on this one too. My impression from reading the text of the measure is that they haven't got a clue as to how much property The City owns. Will take plenty of bureaucrats just to keep up with recordkeeping aspect of the measure. As Starchild always says, that's always a good thing because it keeps them busy and out of more mischief, but I think the busy work keeps the little people busy and folks like the supervisors still find time to dream up more schemes to help "the people."